Talk:New York State Route 221/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 04:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mitch. I haven't reviewed one of your articles in a few years, so I thought I'd come back.

• I do appreciate the detail including the route profile and what's on the road. Is there an elevation profile? That might also be useful.

After a while, that may confuse the reader with all the numbers. I would limit usage on it. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The direct route and most of the loop road were improved to state highway standards as part of a project contracted out on October 16, 1914," -- What about the roads would have needed improvement?
• Are there any figures on the number of people who commute through the road each day? Here in Ohio, ODOT studies and keeps publicly accessible records of estimated traffic on state routes. If this were an Ohio route I would say it's essential, but I'm unfamiliar with NYSDOT and what information it releases.

Yes, but it seems useless for a 2-lane highway in the middle of a normally rural county. That's my justification at least. if NY 221 or 200 were a freeway or something that sees traffic counts as important, yes. Here, no.Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Eight duplicate links appear in the article: CR 136, Harford (2x), NY 38, US 11, Marathon, Willet, and Cortland County.

CR 136 is a typo. There's a 131 duplicate I never fixed. Rest are done except for the Cortland and Harford, because WP:OVERLINK says at least once if a benefit to readers after the lead, Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Two external links show "Status" but neither is dead. One dablink appears in the article, but it is for the disambiguation at the top.

Nothing major. Will return. —Ed!^(talk) 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your responses. Were this a more major road I'd be more insistent about traffic numbers, and were it a road through a more rugged terrain I would be more insistent about the twists and turns. For GA I find the amount of information is satisfactory. A quick check at a few references confirm what they are verifying, so I'm passing for GA. Good work. —Ed!^(talk) 13:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)